Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

Minor errors within the 2014 amendments to the CIL Regulations 2010 ...

2014-02-27T15:28:28Z

Hi all,

Just to let you know that there appear to be a couple of minor errors within the new Statutory Instrument 2014 No. 385 (i.e. the 2014 amendments to the CIL Regulations 2010), which came into force on 24/02/2014:

Firstly, regulation 8(1) of SI 2014 No. 385 (link) refers to "regulation 58" of the CIL Regulations 2010 - it appears that the latter reference instead should be "regulation 58A".

Secondly, regulation 9(3)(e) of SI 2014 No. 385 (link) refers to regulation 65 "paragraph (12)" of the CIL Regulations 2010 - in my opinion, the latter reference instead should be "paragraph (12)(b)", to ensure that it doesn't also apply to the phrase "planning permission" within paragraph (12)(c).

For reference, there were also a couple of other insignificant errors - e.g. a comma instead of a full-stop, a duplicate full-stop, etc.

For info, I've just finished incorporating SI 2014 No. 385 into the "CIL Regulations 2010 (Consolidated)" document on my website, so those of you who are members will hopefully find it useful.

Thanks,

Steve

Outline Permission - maximum number of units

2014-02-14T10:29:38Z

Hi all,

Although I don't deal with applications for outline planning permission, please note that the above article 4(3) of the DMPO 2010 was deleted by Statutory Instrument 2012 No. 3109 (link).

Unfortunately, although the main point of the DMPO 2010 was to provide a consolidated version of the GDPO 1995, it has subsequently been amended by (at least) 10 separate Statutory Instruments. This means that the "as amended" version of the DMPO 2010 that actually applies in law today is now very different to the original version that's on the government website.

Thanks,

Steve

Permitted Development Rights for C4 HMOs

2014-02-06T10:50:24Z

[IMPORTANT UPDATE]

Hi all,

With regards to this issue of whether an HMO (i.e. a C4 "small HMO" or a sui generis "large HMO") benefits from Part 1 of the GPDO, please note that there have been the following significant changes over the last few months.

Firstly, the Planning Inspectorate has recently produced the following document that advises its Inspectors that an HMO can benefit from Part 1 of the GPDO:

Advice produced by the Planning Inspectorate for use by its Inspectors – 15 January 2014 - Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) and Permitted Development Rights (link).

Secondly, the balance of appeal decisions has significantly changed over the last few months. For example, in my above post (dated November 2013), I stated that there had been 3 appeal decisions that concluded that a C4 HMO does not benefit from Part 1 of the GPDO versus 1 appeal decision that concluded that a C4 HMO does benefit from Part 1 of the GPDO. However, since then, there have been 4 more appeal decisions (3 of which were determined after the publication of the above document), all of which have concluded that a C4 HMO does benefit from Part 1 of the GPDO. This means that the balance of appeal decisions has now changed from 3 vs 1 to 3 vs 5, and (as a result of the above document) is likely to continue in the latter direction.

Thanks,

Steve

Fee - prior approval

2014-01-17T16:39:55Z

Hi Michelle,

As Chris says, the fee is £80.

For info, the above fee was introduced by the following Statutory Instrument, which sets out that (from 01/10/2013) a fee of £80 is payable for an application under any Part of the GPDO 1995 relating to development that involves making a material change of use. In practice, this corresponds to an application for prior approval under Schedule 2 Part 3 of the GPDO 1995.

SI 2013 No. 2153 – The Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2013

However, the above fee is not payable where the same applicant on the same day makes an application for planning permission (for which a fee is payable) on a site that includes buildings or land that are the subject of the application for prior approval.

Thanks,
Steve

[Edited because the link to the SI was changing the word order of the paragraph].

20cm setback rule

2014-01-09T14:44:02Z

Hi Nicholas,

The appeal decisions to which I referred can be found within the "B.2(b)" topic of the following document:

http://planningjungle.com/householder-permitted-development/part-1-of-the-gpdo-appeal-decision-summaries

I'm afraid that I'm unable to repost the references for these appeal decisions here, as they're only available to members. However, for info, the conclusions of these appeal decisions can be summarised as follows:

PITCHED ROOF:

In the case where a property has an original rear projection with a pitched roof with eaves at a lower level than the eaves of the main rear roof, appeal decisions have concluded the following:

- 15 appeal decisions have concluded that B.2(b) would allow a roof extension that extends from the main rear roof onto the side roof of the original rear projection, even though the roof extension would (at least partly) extend across the line of the original rear eaves.

- Furthermore, 5 of the above appeal decisions dealt with the situation where the ridge-line of the original rear projection is at a (slightly) lower level than the eaves of the main rear roof, which means that they concluded that B.2(b) would still allow such a roof extension even if it would fully extend across the line of the original rear eaves.

- However, in constrast, 2 appeal decision have concluded that B.2(b) would NOT allow the above type of roof extension - one of these appeal decisions dealt with the first of the above situations, and the other dealt with the second of the above situations.

FLAT ROOF:

In the case where a property has an original rear projection with a flat roof at a (slightly) lower level than the eaves of the main rear roof, appeal decisions have concluded the following:

- 2 appeal decisions have concluded that B.2(b) would allow a roof extension that extends from the main rear roof onto the flat roof of the original rear projection, even though the roof extension would fully extend across the line of the original rear eaves.

- However, in constrast, 2 appeal decisions have concluded that B.2(b) would NOT allow the above type of roof extension.

Please note that, as indicated in my post above, all of the above appeals relate to the situation where the roof of the original rear projection at a similar level to the main roof. In my opinion, where you have an existing secondary roof that's significantly lower than the main roof, it's debatable whether an extension to such a lower roof should be assessed against Class A or Class B.

Thanks,

Steve

Permitted Development Rights for C4 HMOs

2013-11-20T10:11:19Z

Hi John,

So far I've seen 3 appeal decisions that have concluded that a C4 house in multiple occupation (i.e. a “small HMO”) does not benefit from Part 1 of the GPDO, and 1 appeal decision that has concluded that a C4 HMO does benefit from Part 1 of the GPDO.

Here's one of the first 3 appeal decisions:

---------------------------------------------------

Reference: APP/G5750/C/12/2179140

Date: 01/03/2013

Quote: "The Council submitted that it would be unlikely that the terms of the GPDO were intended to grant permitted development rights to some class C4 buildings and not others. This is a view that has not yet, as far as I am aware, been tested through the courts. However, taking account of all the above points, it seems likely that permitted development rights for extensions to single dwellings do not extend to class C4 HMOs. Therefore, there are no permitted development rights that would have allowed the construction of the extension while the building was in use as any type of HMO."

Link: http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/ViewCase.asp?caseid=2179140&coid=2113540

---------------------------------------------------

And here's the contrary appeal decision:

---------------------------------------------------

Reference: APP/M5450/X/12/2189103

Date: 11/11/2013

Quote: "I consider that HMOs, whether occupied by up to six residents, and hence falling within Class C4 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended) (the UCO), or more than six residents, and hence a sui generis use, are dwellinghouses for the purposes of the GPDO, provided that they are not expressly excluded from that definition. In other words, a HMO is simply a type of dwellinghouse use. It is not a condition of qualifying for GPDO PD rights that a “dwellinghouse” is a “dwellinghouse” of a particular type described in the UCO. Since the appeal building is not excluded from the definition of ‘dwellinghouse’ by virtue of containing one or more flats, I am satisfied that it benefits from the PD rights granted by Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the GPDO."

Link: http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/ViewCase.asp?caseid=2189103&coid=2123562

---------------------------------------------------

Thanks,

Steve

Permitted Development

2013-11-05T18:27:36Z

Hi all,

Further to my posts above, I’ve received a reply from DCLG which states that, although only the Courts can ultimately give a definitive interpretation of legislation, the intention of Part 3 Class J was to allow an office to be converted into (multiple) flats (i.e. as well as the option of it being converted into a single house).

Furthermore, the reply stated that, other than the guidance on the NPPG beta site (which will take into account comments received on the site), no further guidance is planned in relation to the changes to the GPDO that were introduced in May 2013.

Thanks,

Steve

Use Classes Order 1987 - Flowchart that illustrates the interactions ...

2013-10-23T13:44:34Z

Hi all,

In case anyone's interested, I've created a flowchart that illustrates the interactions between the Use Classes (i.e. the interactions due to the permitted changes of use and temporary uses from Parts 3 and 4 of the GPDO 1995). I'm not sure whether this type of flowchart has been done before, but even being familiar with the legislation, it was quite surprising how complicated such a flowchart turns out to be. Of course, if the currently proposed additional PD rights for A1, A2, B1, C1, C2, C2A, D2, and agricultural properties come into force, then this type of flowchart would become even more complicated!

For info, the flowchart is available at the end of the document on the following webpage, which is one of the free documents on the website:

http://planningjungle.com/consolidated-versions-of-legislation/use-classes-order-1987-quick-reference-guide

Thanks,

Steve

Permitted Development

2013-10-21T09:54:04Z

Hi John,

Thanks very much for your reply. As you say, the legislation puts LPAs in a very difficult position. Unfortunately, it appears to be very common nowadays for central government to release unclear legislation without (decent) guidance, which then means that every LPA has to work out its own set of interpretations. It strikes me as a very inefficient system, because whatever money is saved when central government chooses not to produce guidance, is then spent several hundred times over when every LPA has to work out its own set of interpretations. And, of course, it's also very inefficient for planning consultants and developers to have to deal with multiple LPAs each (potentially) applying a different set of interpretations.

One of the key issues that you've highlighted is the question of how an LPA should deal with an application for prior approval if it believes that the works wouldn't fall within that particular Class of permitted development rights. This is an issue that I've discussed within the "Part 1 of the GPDO - 2013 Amendments - Guide" document on my website, as this same situation arises when an LPA receives an application for prior approval under Part 1 Class A condition A.4 and it appears to the LPA (without necessarily being 100% clear) that the works wouldn't fall within Part 1 Class A. For example, this situation arises for such an application when the LPA suspects that the use of the property might fall within Use Class C4, etc.

When I first looked into the above issue, I assumed that a clear answer would be available, particularly as this same issue has existed for many years for applications under Parts 6, 7, 24, and 31 of the GPDO. However, out of the 7 appeal decisions that I found that dealt with this issue, although 5 supported the approach that the LPA should process the application regardless (albeit perhaps with the use of informatives, etc), the other 2 supported the opposite approach that the LPA should invalidate the application. I guess nothing better demonstrates that a piece of legislation is unclear and lacks (decent) guidance than when government Inspectors are unable to interpret it consistently. What's most frustrating is that even though the above issue has existed for many years for applications under Parts 6, 7, 24, and 31 of the GPDO, when central government recently released the new legislation for Parts 1 and 3 of the GPDO it completely missed the opportunity to clarify this issue.

Anyway, in case it helps, I've just sent an email to DCLG to ask them whether Part 3 Class J would only allow an office to be converted into a single house, or whether it would also allow an office to be converted into multiple flats.

Thanks,

Steve

Permitted Development

2013-10-19T12:12:57Z

Hi John,

In my opinion, the approach taken by the LPA in this particular case (i.e. to decide that the application for prior approval is "invalid") is a relatively risky approach. In short, if the LPA's interpretation of the legislation is incorrect (which in my opinion is the case), then after 8 weeks the developer will be able to lawfully start works, and the LPA would have lost its opportunity to assess the transport impacts, contamination risks, and flooding risks, of the proposed development.

As you say, from a procedural point of view the developer has relatively limited options, other than (say) waiting 8 weeks, then starting works, then receiving an enforcement notice, and then appealing the enforcement notice. Alternatively, if at some point in the future the government issues guidance that Part 3 Class J allows an office to be converted into multiple flats, then the developer would be able to start works with the knowledge that the combination of the government guidance plus the "invalid" letter from the LPA demonstrates that they submitted a valid application for prior approval, for which the LPA failed to issue a decision within 8 weeks.

A good example of the risks for an LPA if it decides that an application for prior approval is "invalid" is provided by the Court of Appeal judgement "Murrell & Anor v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2010] EWCA Civ 1367", which is available on the following webpage of the Bailii website:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/1367.html

In the above case, the developer submitted an application for prior approval (under Part 6 of the GPDO) on 01/12/2008, which the LPA then decided was invalid for several reasons, including the fact that the developer had not used the standard application form provided by the government.

The developer then submitted this additional information (which was received by the LPA on 09/12/2008), and the LPA then issued a decision on 31/12/2008 stating that prior approval was required and that such approval was refused. It should be noted that this decision date was less than 28 days after the date that the additional information was submitted, but more than 28 days after the date that the application (without the additional information) was submitted.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the information received by the LPA on 01/12/2008 complied with the requirements of the GPDO and was a valid application, and that the GPDO does not require any of the additional information requested by the LPA. This meant that the 28 day period started on 01/12/2008 and expired on 28/12/2008. As such, the LPA failed to issue a decision within the 28 day period, and therefore permission for the development accrued under the GPDO.

Although the questions on this forum about whether Part 3 Class J allows an office to be converted into multiple flats have received relatively few responses (and a fairly mixed response), it does appear to be clear that a significant number of LPAs have taken the interpretation that Part 3 Class J does allow this. For example, the following article on the Planning Resource website contains a lot of references to applications to convert offices into multiple flats, without any references to LPAs deciding that the legislation wouldn't allow this:

http://www.planningresource.co.uk/article/1210440/office-politics

For example, within the above article, one agent states that "applicants are looking to convert smaller properties, typically with five units, though with some up to 20", and the head of planning at an LPA states that the offices subject of these applications "are typically on the edge of town centres and usually propose ten to 12 flats". There are also references to applications to convert very large office blocks into multiple flats, including the following:

- An application to convert an office into 120 flats, for which Birmingham City Council issued a decision stating that prior approval was not required:

http://eplanning.birmingham.gov.uk/Northgate/PlanningExplorer/Generic/StdDetails.aspx?PT=Planning%20Applications%20On-Line&TYPE=PL/PlanningPK.xml&PARAM0=594926&XSLT=/Northgate/PlanningExplorer/SiteFiles/Skins/Birmingham/xslt/PL/PLDetails.xslt&FT=Planning%20Application%20Details&PUBLIC=Y&XMLSIDE=/Northgate/PlanningExplorer/SiteFiles/Skins/Birmingham/Menus/PL.xml&DAURI=PLANNING

[If necessary, search for the application reference 2013/04621/PA].

- An application to convert an office into 139 flats, for which the London Borough of Hounslow issued a decision stating that prior approval was not required:

http://planning.hounslow.gov.uk/Planning_CaseNo.aspx?strCASENO=PA/2013/2769

[If necessary, search for the application reference PA/2013/2769 or 00996/50/PA1].

In addition, I would also question the practicality of the interpretation (which has been mentioned above) that Part 3 Class J allows an office to be converted into multiple flats, BUT that each flat would need to be the subject of a SEPARATE application for prior approval. Such an interpretation would imply that, in the second of the above examples, the LPA should have required the developer to submit a total of 139 separate applications (!), each of which would have required a separate application number, a separate set of paperwork, a separate decision notice, etc. In my opinion, if it's accepted that Part 3 Class J allows an office to be converted into multiple flats (which in my opinion is the case), then the only practical way that LPAs can deal with these types of applications is to allow the multiple flats to be the subject of a single application.

Thanks,

Steve

Abolition of Conservation Area Consent

2013-10-04T16:58:23Z

Thanks John, Richard :-)

To be honest, I don't know how the government expects anyone to be able to keep track of all of these changes. As an example, suppose someone asks you the simple question "what is relevant demolition?". To give the full answer, you need to follow ALL of the following steps:

1) Firstly, you need to look at section 196D of the TCPA 1990. However, this section hasn't yet been added to the version of the TCPA 1990 on the government website "www.legislation.gov.uk", so you actually need to look at the following different Act.

2) Secondly, you need to look at section 63 and Schedule 17 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, which inserted section 196D into the TCPA 1990. The definition of "relevant demolition" within this Schedule contains a double negative by stating that it's the demolition of a building in a CA that's "not a building to which section 74 of the [LBCA Act 1990] does not apply by virtue of section 75 of that Act".

3) Thirdly, you need to know that the above section and Schedule have come into force by finding the relevant Commencement Order (i.e. 2013 No. 2227 (C. 92)).

4) Fourthly, you need to look at section 75 of the LBCA Act 1990. This section contains a list of 4 exceptions (e.g. listed buildings, ecclesiastical buildings, etc), the last of which is "buildings in relation to which a direction under subsection (2) is for the time being in force".

5) Fifthly, you need to know that paragraph 31 of Circular 01/01 constitutes the above type of "direction". This paragraph sets out a list of 11 further exceptions.

6) Sixthly, you also need to bear in mind the potential effect of paragraph 2(1) of "The Town and Country Planning (Demolition - Description of Buildings) Direction 1995", which excludes certain works from the definition of "development". Unfortunately, this Direction is not available on any government website.

7) Seventhly, when reading the above Direction, you also need to know that paragraphs 2(1)(a) to 2(1)(d) were found to be unlawful by the Court of Appeal in "R (SAVE Britain's Heritage) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2011] EWCA Civ 334".

Of course, if you then look at the version of the GPDO 1995 on the government website, it will give you the impression that "relevant demolition" is permitted development, unless you're also aware of SIs 2013 No. 2147 and 2013 No. 2435, which are just 2 out of a total of 32 SIs that amend the GPDO 1995!

Perhaps the best illustration of the farcical nature of the legislation regarding demolition is the "Demolition in Wonderland" article by Martin Goodall, which is available towards the end of the following page on his website:

http://planninglawblog.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/eia-required-for-demolition.html

Thanks,

Steve

Abolition of Conservation Area Consent

2013-10-04T14:44:33Z

Hi John,

SI 2013 No. 2147 amended Part 31 Class A (from 01/10/2013 onwards) so that “relevant demolition” (i.e. the demolition of an unlisted (etc) building in a CA) is no longer permitted development under Class A.

SI 2013 No. 2435 amended Part 31 Class B (from 01/10/2013 onwards) so that “relevant demolition” (i.e. the demolition of an unlisted (etc) building in a CA) is no longer permitted development under Class B.

As such, those types of demolition that previously required CAC (and were an offence without CAC) now require PP (and are an offence without PP) and are no longer permitted development under Part 31 of the GPDO 1995.

For reference, the first of the above SIs was made on 29/08/2013, but contained a significant error because it didn't amend Part 31 Class B. Subsequently, the second of the above SIs was made on 24/09/2013, which was just in time to correct this significant error before both of the above SIs came into force 01/10/2013.

Thanks,

Steve

Time Extensions

2013-10-02T20:03:21Z

Hi Andrew,

The following written statement by Nick Boles to Parliament on 03/09/2013 states that there will not be a further extension to this measure:

"In October 2012, a temporary measure introduced by the previous Government that enables applicants to seek more time to implement a planning permission was extended by 12 months. To encourage developments to start on site promptly once planning permission is granted, this temporary measure will not be extended further. This will complement the £1 billion Government are investing to get stalled sites moving again and help to reduce the 60,500 sites that are currently on hold."

Source: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm130903/wmstext/130903m0001.htm#130903m0001.htm_spmin1

Thanks,
Steve

Permitted Development

2013-10-02T19:57:23Z

Hi all,

For info, the question of whether or not Part 3 Class J allows an office to be converted into (multiple) flats was also discussed in the following thread, although there were also different opinions:

https://khub.net/group/planningadvisoryservicepas/forum/-/message_boards/message/10967535

Thanks,

Steve

General Permitted Development Charges

2013-09-19T10:50:29Z

Hi Katie,

For a prior approval application under Part 1 Class A (i.e. a larger home extension) there is currently no fee, and from 01/10/2013 onwards there will still be no fee.

For a prior approval application under Part 3 (i.e. a change of use) there is currently no fee, and from 01/10/2013 onwards there will be a fee of £80.

For reference, the latter is being introduced by the following part of the new Statutory Instrument 2013 No. 2153:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/2153/regulation/6/made

Please also note that the new legislation includes the exception that the above £80 fee will not be payable where the same applicant on the same day makes an application for planning permission (for which a fee is payable) on the same site

Thanks,
Steve

20cm setback rule

2013-08-14T09:42:42Z

Hi David,

If you do assess such works against Class B, then as you indicate it's difficult to know whether the new pitched roof would only be permitted development if it's set-back from the edge of the existing flat roof by 20cm, or whether it's the case that such a set-back would not be "practicable".

Although the DCLG "Technical Guidance" document advises that the 20cm set-back should be "measured along the roof slope", in my opinion this is simply providing advice for the most common scenario of a proposed dormer on an existing pitched roof (for which the direction of the roof slope is the shortest distance), and doesn't necessarily mean that it's not possible to measure the 20cm set-back for an existing flat roof. Indeed, the legislation itself uses the phrase "not less than 20 centimetres from the eaves of the original roof", which doesn't necessarily mean that this measurement will always have to be in the direction of a roof slope.

In terms of appeal decisions, Inspectors have generally taken quite a restrictive interpretation of condition B.2(b), and have tended to reject arguments that the 20cm set-back would result in additional cost, or additional delay, or reduced internal floor space, etc. The only examples of appeal decisions (that I'm aware of) where Inspectors have concluded that the 20cm set-back is not practicable have tended to be where a property has an original rear projection at a similar level to the main rear roof (i.e. an "outrigger") for which it's proposed to erect an L-shaped rear dormer that would extend from the main rear roof onto the side roof of the original rear projection (and which would therefore extend across part of the original rear eaves without the 20cm set-back).

In terms of your particular situation, the only appeal decision I've seen that involved the proposed replacement of a flat roof with a pitched roof was APP/P2365/X/12/2179324, which was 1 of the 4 appeal decisions that I mentioned in my post above. Indeed, it was the appeal decision that concluded that such works should be assessed against Class A and Class B. Unfortunately, this appeal decision doesn't help your assessment, because the Inspector dismissed it on the basis that the works would exceed the volume limit under limitation B.1(c), and didn't proceed to assess whether or not the works would have complied with condition B.2(b).

Thanks,

Steve

20cm setback rule

2013-08-13T16:23:02Z

Hi David,

Where you have an existing secondary roof that's significantly lower than the main roof (or the main roofs), then in my opinion it's debatable whether an extension to such a lower roof should be assessed against Class A or Class B.

It's worth noting that if these types of works are assessed against Class B, then this would result in a number of very significant loopholes. For example, it's clear that two-storey side extensions (and first floor side extensions) are supposed to be prevented by the legislation. And yet, for a typical two-storey property with an existing single storey side extension, if the view is taken that an extension to such a lower roof should be assessed against Class B (i.e. rather than Class A), then this would potentially allow a first floor side extension (e.g. in the form of a dormer set-back from the eaves, etc). Similarly, for a typical two-storey property with an existing single storey rear extension, this would potentially allow a first floor rear extension up to the boundary with the adjoining property.

Unfortunately, there haven't been many appeal decisions relating to this type of issue, and the ones there have been have mostly contradicted one-another. For example, I've seen 2 appeal decisions that concluded that an extension to a lower roof should be assessed against Class A, 1 appeal decision that concluded Class B, and 1 appeal decision that concluded Class A and Class B ... which doesn't help very much!

Thanks,
Steve

Consultation on new permitted changes of use

2013-08-13T15:50:18Z

Hi Peter,

Another issue is whether an agricultural building that changes to residential would be able to subsequently benefit from PD rights under Part 1 of the GPDO. Indeed, the recent legislation for office to residential conversions doesn't restrict such subsequent rights, and the consultation document for these new proposals doesn't give any indication that such subsequent rights would be restricted.

This would mean that, unless the area is subject to an Article 4 direction restricting Part 1 of the GPDO, an agricultural building that changes to residential would be able to subsequently significantly increase its footprint. Indeed, one of the more extreme examples would be (say) a detached agricultural building in the green belt (not article 1(5) land), with no elevation that fronts a highway, which would be able to subsequently erect some (or all) of the following:

A front extension with no meaningful restriction on its length (see appeal decision APP/Y3615/X/10/2142515 for an example of where a property would more than triple its original footprint).
A half-width side extension on each side (which would double its original footprint).
A rear extension with length 8m under the new prior approval process (which would be likely to more than double its original footprint).

Indeed, the resulting footprint from all of the above extensions would be more than 5 times the original footprint! And that's before the property then erects its 300m2 outbuilding (see appeal decision APP/H1515/X/10/2124574). For more info about the above types of extreme examples, please see the "Part 1 of the GPDO - The 10 Worst Permitted Development Loopholes" document.

Thanks,

Steve

Re: Consultation on new permitted changes of use

2013-08-07T17:43:41Z

Hi Jonathan, As you indicate, the government is basically using the GPDO as a tool to force through significant changes in national policy. The above approach is something that I strongly dislike. Firstly, the GPDO was always meant to be a tool to allow minor and uncontentious development, not a tool to force through significant changes in national policy. Secondly, it strikes me that the government, after the negative reaction to the draft NPPF (e.g. the campaign in the Daily Telegraph, etc), has taken the view that they are more likely to be able to achieve their aims without significant public and media reaction if they do so via amendments to the GPDO, rather than via the NPPF. As an example, consider how Part 3 Class J (office to residential) would have looked if the government had instead tried to achieve this same aim via the NPPF, which in my opinion would have been the appropriate place for such a significant change in national policy. Firstly, it would have meant including a sentence in the NPPF that local authorities, when considering a planning application for office to residential, should completely disregard all considerations about the viability of that particular office, even if it's currently being used as an office. Secondly, it would have meant including a sentence in the NPPF that local authorities, when considering a planning application for office to residential, should completely disregard all considerations about the standard of accommodation for the resulting residential unit(s), including minimum room sizes, minimum unit sizes, amenity space, outlook, etc. I'm pretty certain that if the above type of sentences had been included in the NPPF, they would have received the same type of negative reaction as other parts of the draft NPPF. And yet, as amendments to the GPDO, such changes seem to have a much lower public and media profile. Thanks, Steve

Re: Consultation on new permitted changes of use

2013-08-07T11:04:38Z

Hi Jonathan, I think your final paragraph sums up the process well. At some point I want to write a detailed post about the "Impact Assessment" for the recent changes to Part 1 of the GPDO, because it's shocking when you realise how many of the key pieces of "evidence" that were used to justify the changes simply don't stand up to any level of scrutiny. The government press release to which you've provided a link is also fairly typical of how these things work. The main impact of these new proposals upon high streets would be allowing A1 and A2 properties to convert to houses and flats. The government press release indicates that these new proposals are supported by the "Portas Review" by stating the following: "The proposals reflect the advice of the Portas Review, which recommended more flexibility for change of use, and would help the high street, rural communities and local retailers by increasing footfall and spending." And yet, if you follow the link in the government press release to the "Portas Review" document, then there doesn't appear to be anything in there that supports the idea of allowing A1 and A2 properties to convert to houses and flats. Indeed, Portas talks about allowing empty retail units on high streets to be used for a range of community uses (e.g. schools, gyms, youth clubs, yoga, bingo, etc), and doesn't mention anything about allowing them to be converted into private houses and flats. Thanks, Steve